Board of Aldermen 12-26-2018 Page 12
Alderman Jette
| just want to respond, | never said any of those things. Those assumptions are assumptions that you
apparently are making, not.
Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja
And if | may but you pointed out one person had zero hours and now they could accumulate, so | think
people can, and | didn’t say you said that, | think people listening tonight could say — oh someone had
zero hours and now we are giving them something. And | just don’t want people going down the path that
we may be giving someone something. They may have zero hours because there is a legitimate reason
for them to have used their health time. So | am not saying that you said that, I’m saying other people
may make that assumption, so | think we need to be careful.
Alderman Jette
So if | could just clarify, what | said and what | meant was that | think it is unfair to have gone back 6 years
and taken away from people what they had earned up until 2001. But! do think it is fair going forward,
after 2001, to in exchange for giving them an unlimited amount of sick leave which they have to earn at a
rate of | think it is 13 days a year but going forward, they can accumulate an unlimited amount of sick time,
but when they retire, they are limited to a cash payout of only 20% of that. And | was just pointing out that
there were some people in this group who as of 2001 had no unused sick time and so going forward, so
they didn’t lose anything when the policy was changed. They have the right after 2001 to accumulate and
most of them have accumulated sick leave time which they can use, it is unlimited, but when they retire
they can only cash it out at 20%.
Alderman Lopez
| just want to observe that if the Mayor’s veto stands, that is the only way nobody gets anything, it would
eliminate both the ordinance and the amendment. With the amendment that we added the difference is
that the employees who were affected can choose whether they want the current benefit reimbursement or
the previous one. Because some of them actually don’t want 100% of 720, they are using their sick leave
as a potential back up against longer term illness. So we are still talking about whether or not we are
going to re-refer that, but | just wanted to clarify that the only way if we don’t re-refer it, that all of the
employees continue to live in unjust situation is if the Mayor’s veto stands.
President Wilshire
The Motion before us is to re-refer, further discussion on that Motion? Seeing none, would the Clerk
please call the roll.
A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:
Yea: Ald. O’Brien, Ald. Dowd, Ald. Laws,
Ald. Jette, Ald. Tencza, 05
Nay: Ald. Lopez, Ald. Caron, Ald. Kelly
Ald. Melizzi-Golja, Ald. Schmidt, Ald. Wilshire 06
MOTION FAILED
